Norman Dog

iTrader: (1)

Ah, but those kids that the childless taxpayer is subsidising now, will grow up and pay the tax that will be needed to subsidise the childless taxpayers old age pension.

Swings and roundabouts.

classic Subaru Si

It's quite relevant really, as this is what the topic is about

jonc

Because it's easier for HMRC, otherwise CB would have to be means tested per household and that in itself would increase cost and create a more bureaucratic system. It's easier to say "yep that person is on £50k, cut CB" rather than create a new system where each household would have to submit a form stating total income, which would then have to be reviewed whenever there is a change in total income. Remember this is only short term until they bring in one universal benefit system that will rid the system and simplify a multitude of benefits we have now, many of which are open to abuse. I just hope that the Government are able to follow through with this.

jonc

He has 3 kids, £20.30/wk for the first kid, £13.40/wk for additional kids. So what's your point?

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/...ildbenefit.htm

To save you looking it up ... £20.30 pw for first child, £13.40 pw for each subsequent child. Families with 2 kids therefore will forego £1752 per year if it gets removed ie the equivalent of £2103 if you're getting taxed at 20% or £2453 if you're getting taxed at 40%.

TX.

zip106

Ah well.

We'll lose £2500 a year, just means I need to do more undeclared cash jobs

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

TX.

classic Subaru Si

The point being 40 odd quid a week is nothing when you earn 50k per year. I know you think your doing everyone a favour by churning out kids, but I've got a news flash for you - you ain't pal, far from it. You have kids for your own personal reasons, not to keep the human race going, it's utter bo11ocks that you have sat down with your woman and said "hey, we really need to produce children to keep the human race going" you made the decision because its what you want in life. I've no problem with that, your choice, but please don't start ranting and raving saying how hard done you are cos you've lost your benifits when your earning over 50 big ones a year. It's not a massive wage, but it's better than most. Suck it up, change your lifestyle and get on with it.

Funkii Munkii

Were you beaten as a child ?

classic Subaru Si

Nope, you odd ball

jonc

It's obvious you've failed to understand or taken in what I've written on this subject or the principle of this discussion. What you fail to also take in is that you too benefited from CB through out your childhood when your parents were claiming it. It's pointless engaging with you any further on this subject.

An0n0m0us

Absolute bullsh!t and again shows you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

Funkii Munkii

Read your own posts on this subject ?

classic Subaru Si

Do not dismiss me cos I don't have kids, that is bullsh1t right there. Stop ******* moaning about being shafted and support your family on your own 2 feet. You earn good money, and your wife doesn't work.

classic Subaru Si

Yeah your right, our family had it dead easy... Dad was self employed, and my mum stopped working for a few months, then right back in to work. Your a joke, man up and deal with your responsibilities like my parents did.

An0n0m0us

If you were being shafted I bet you'd be unhappy about it so I have every right to kick off about it.

My Wife doesn't work for reasons already explained which have clearly gone over your head.

I am supporting my family on my own 2 feet and that child benefit is some of MY 5 figure tax bill returned to me for spending on my children.

classic Subaru Si

Err, yeah I wrote them, you ****

Funkii Munkii

Classy

When you dont understand what you're writing/talking about and all else fails call someone a ****, bravo sir.

I'll leave you to it si I dont want to ruin the good work Anonomous and Jonc are doing.

classic Subaru Si

And when all you've got to say is "was you beaten as a child" what sort of response do you expect? Have HAVE YOU read what you've written?

Clarebabes

Your mum and dad still had CB, we all did as kids, so they didn't have it as hard as they could have done. Imagine what they would have had to do if they didn't have that little extra...

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

Careful people; as this topic needs to be treated with kid gloves.





I'll get me coat...

zip106

**** 'em.... there's enough tax taken from my household.

Leslie

I just cannot believe that they can come out with such an arrangement. How can anyone justify that?

Les

Geezer

Because they are desperate Les!

Geezer

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

It is a double whammy as the evil high earner will be paying forty percent tax and only using one tax allowance where the couple with two lower incomes will use both allowances and keep the CB.

Utter cretins, dicking people becuase it is too complicated to do properly, I can respect the need for people to get paid less money but doing this like this loses them all credibility with me, I could handle losing four grands worth of income if it was fair, wont be voting for them again unless they make this mess right.

^Qwerty^

I've written to ask my MP that very question?

The intended implementation of these child benefit cuts is flawed very badly. As a very simple example, take two families living next door to each other and they have the same outgoing.
In one family you have one earner on £60,000. That family will lose their entire child benefit payments. Their disposable income/take home pay is £41,581.10, paying £13,884.00 in tax and £4,534.90 in NI.

The other family has two earners on £30,000 each. That family will continue to receive full child benefit payments. Their disposable incoming/take home pay is £22,933.60 each, paying £4,379 in tax and £2687.40 in NI. So their combined net pay is £45867.20.

So the family which has over £4000 more disposable incoming is going to keep the benefit, whilst the family already with less money to play with is going to lose it.

At the extreme, two earners on £50k a year, and thus a combined take home pay of £71562.20 get to keep the benefit.

If the cut has to be made, then they should at least make it fair. As it is, I want to know why my family and many others in a similar position are being discriminated against.

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

if they wanted to cut anywhere why not just say
AS OF 06/11/2012 ANYONE DIAGNOSED PREGNANT WITH 3rd or more chils on benefits will recieve no more benefits , that would stop the cash for kids problem, and also make passengers think twice, we had 3 because we are working and can afford them thats our choice, however they don't have to think like that do they. why because the taxpayers pay for them to breed, thats the bigger problem. that will come into play in the next 20 years. another generation of passengers

fitzscoob

I'd be very interested to hear what the MP has to say about the matter. When you put it in plain simple English like that.

An0n0m0us

I don't know about the mp, I want to see Cameron and Clegg defend it from the exact wording put above.

Qwerty it sounds a very well written letter, if you didn't mind I would like to send a copy of the letter to my mp as well as I don't think it's possible to put it any better than you have above. Have you thought of sending to No 10 as well?

Neanderthal

iTrader: (6)

I think I need to read up on this cause with our joint income of less than £42k we've just had a letter saying we will get £40/week for our one child?